Campbell: Group: US needs problem solvers

You might not have heard, but the difference-makers in the presidential election this year will be PSVs: problem-solving voters. You know, people who’d like Washington and those we send there to actually work for a change.

So says Mark McKinnon, a political strategist who in his time has helped former President George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain and the late Texas Gov. Ann Richards.

McKinnon blogged about PSVs back in June based on a poll of 1,000 voters conducted for a not-well-enough-known group he helped found with the engaging name of “No Labels.” (nolabels.org/blog/problem-solving-voter)

Polls, to me, are for sway-with-the-wind politicians. What intrigued me wasn’t so much the results of that survey but the message No Labels is promoting.

I was introduced to the group recently through a huge envelope that I initially took for junk mail. Inside was a 10-by-10 booklet shouting “Make the presidency work!” on the cover, with tiny cartoonish characters holding signs that added “because it can!”

This actually is a follow-up to “Make Congress Work!” an earlier prescription for cutting down on some of the infernal nonsense practiced by elected representatives who demonstrate little evidence of actually earning what we taxpayers are paying them.

No Labels is reaching out to people who want politicians to put problem-solving ahead of point-scoring, to “stop fighting and start fixing.” The group advocates more powerful incentives for our leaders to do the right thing, to counter the incentives (campaign donations, opposition threats) for them to choose destructive partisanship over the public interest.

Co-founders come from across the political spectrum, and they have experience as elected officials, Washington staffers, philanthropists, activists, academics and business leaders.

I can’t say I embrace all their ideas, but these are some of the best:

■ Don’t pay members of Congress if they don’t pass spending bills on time. No more of this business of operating by continuing resolutions adopted at the last minute. They should make hard choices and meet deadlines, the way the rest of us have to live.

■ Make everyone operate from the same facts. Instead of Republicans and Democrats picking and choosing the numbers that back their own proposals for the nation’s finances, have a nonpartisan authority like the Comptroller General give a televised public presentation to a joint session of Congress, then have a rational policy debate based on a common set of data.

■ Have the president stand regularly for “question time” before Congress the way the British prime minister does. It could get raucous and tense, but also be revealing. It also would allow the public to see the president and the people’s representatives debate each other face-to-face instead of through dueling press conferences.

■ Improve the appointment process. With more than 1,000 federal positions requiring presidential nomination and Senate approval, even completely noncontroversial nominees can get chewed up by delays in the process. Senators too often hold up votes strictly for partisan reasons, leaving individuals in limbo without justification. Nominees should be confirmed or rejected within 90 days. If the Senate doesn’t vote within that time, a nominee would be confirmed by default.

Here’s a factoid: Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to streamline appointments by reducing the number of presidential appointments that require Senate approval, jobs such as chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, commissioner for education statistics and Housing and Urban Development’s assistant secretary for public affairs. That legislation, Senate Bill 679, went to the president Aug. 2. (1.usa.gov/NjPdtm)

No Labels said more than half of American voters are looking for problem solvers over party affiliators. If only November’s results would prove that true.

Linda P. Campbell is a columnist and editorial writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Don’t pay members of Congress if they don’t pass spending bills on time. No more of this business of operating by continuing resolutions adopted at the last minute. They should make hard choices and meet deadlines, the way the rest of us have to live." [Linda P. Campbell]

I like the idea. Unfortunately, almost all of our elected representatives are multi-millionaires so I'm not sure how much pressure it would actually put on them if they don't get paid. Also, how would such a bill get passed in Congress as they sure as heck won't bring it up for a vote?

"Make everyone operate from the same facts. Instead of Republicans and Democrats picking and choosing the numbers that back their own proposals for the nation’s finances, have a nonpartisan authority like the Comptroller General give a televised public presentation to a joint session of Congress, then have a rational policy debate based on a common set of data." [Linda P. Campbell]

Sounds good to me.

"Have the president stand regularly for “question time” before Congress the way the British prime minister does. It could get raucous and tense, but also be revealing. It also would allow the public to see the president and the people’s representatives debate each other face-to-face instead of through dueling press conferences." [Linda P. Campbell]

Provided there are "standards of conduct" to prevent people like Rep. Joe Wilson from yelling, "You lie!" and making a disgrace out of himself.

"Improve the appointment process. With more than 1,000 federal positions requiring presidential nomination and Senate approval, even completely noncontroversial nominees can get chewed up by delays in the process. Senators too often hold up votes strictly for partisan reasons, leaving individuals in limbo without justification. Nominees should be confirmed or rejected within 90 days. If the Senate doesn’t vote within that time, a nominee would be confirmed by default." [Linda P. Campbell]

I would prefer the nominees be thoroughly screened but it that's what it takes to prevent people like Senator Mitch McConnell from deliberately holding things up then I guess this is what it would take.

Has anybody thought about what will happen if Romney is elected but the Senate remains in the hands of the Democrats? There is no scenario in which the Republicans will hold 60 Senate votes. Won't that lead to the same do-nothingism that plagues us now? Romney can promise all he wants, but Congress will still likely be in a position to stop him.

You're quite right. In his fervent desire to deny President Obama any type of legislative success Senator Mitch McConnell may have "poisoned the well" and unleashed partisan gridlock for a very, very long time. What's even worse is those who applaud this tactic now will be grinding and gnashing their teeth when the same tactic is played on them eventually. And in politics everything that goes around comes around. One way or the other.

When one takes a look at government in the US it is easily seen that it is not representative of the people.
BUT of course this does not indicate that any sort of bigotry is being applied it just means that ‘good ole boys’ and ‘1% money’ have full say in the American way, and we surely would not like to upset them as they hold America much closer to their hearts than the average slob that lives here.